Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases??

Ken Miele · 04-10-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Performance advantage with aluminum drop out? Maybe not, but that's another 15# or more that can be shifted to the weight box. Now traction is that much better and the greasy track is not such an issue as some of the competitors. And some may ad that 15#'s to the front to better control the launch for improved ET's. So yes, there could be significant ET reductions with this part.

Jeff, you say maybe not, then you say its possible, and then you say significant. I do think you have any real knowledge if it does or does not help performance, I do.

My car weighs 3200 pounds and runs 9.80's, that is very light for my class AA, most are 3400 plus. If anyone is going to have an issue with spinning the tires it will be me. I have tested and there is no advantage what so ever. Oh yes, the difference in weight was 11 pounds for me. I would like to see data on how much performance is gained by moving 11 pounds in cars that weigh 3400 plus.

When I asked NHRA if it was a performance advantage, they told me it was not. So if NHRA does not think it is a performance advantage, this argument is mute.

Bob, maybe you should be the one not hitting enter.

Jeff Lee · 04-10-2011, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Miele

Jeff, you say maybe not, then you say its possible, and then you say significant. I do think you have any real knowledge if it does or does not help performance, I do.

My car weighs 3200 pounds and runs 9.80's, that is very light for my class AA, most are 3400 plus. If anyone is going to have an issue with spinning the tires it will be me. I have tested and there is no advantage what so ever. Oh yes, the difference in weight was 11 pounds for me. I would like to see data on how much performance is gained by moving 11 pounds in cars that weigh 3400 plus.

When I asked NHRA if it was a performance advantage, they told me it was not. So if NHRA does not think it is a performance advantage, this argument is mute.

Bob, maybe you should be the one not hitting enter.

My statement indicates I do not believe there is an ET improvement in replacing the part, I do believe there can be an ET improvement in moving the reduced weight fore or aft in the car. And yes, I think that could be significant. "Significant" being of course a relative term. To me, and others like SS Engine Guy, .02 +/- would be considered significant. Some can't find or care about finding lost .200's in their car so as I said, it is a relative term. I can tell you running 10.50's in D/S 6+ years ago wasn't easy and wasn't by poo-poo'ing a hundredth here and there.

And I have to believe this is not a "Ken Miele's Mustang" rule proposal. It would apply to all that have a commercially available aluminum drop out center section. It could even open up the door to custom made aluminum 12 bolt and Dana 60 center sections if applied.
So while Ken Miele's Mustang may not garner .001 ET in moving weight around, the guy with the front-heavy low torque lower class car might experience a greater gain in ET. Or, as I stated previously, ET reduction could be realized on adding the lost weight to the front end. Just like SS Engine Guy, I've always made use of four corner scales.

As I also stated, I thought this issue was put to rest with the much publicized error of Evan Smith in his interpretation of the rule book. I guess if everybody swept that under the carpet then the argument would hold more weight.

And NHRA may have their eye on a bigger issue. If every OEM outsourced part was allowed in Stock, that would open the floodgates on any / all OEM referenced (Mopar Performance / Ford Racing Parts catalogs) parts inclusion in Stock. That's back to the old "be careful what you wish for" issue.

Mark Yacavone · 04-10-2011, 12:13 PM

Jeff, You kind of beat me to a couple points here.

First of all , I always knew aluminum center sections weren't legal in Stock,...way before Evan's article.It had been asked for several times ,and declined in the past.

Next question: Would a tech guy be able to tell if a 12 bolt R&P were being used, at a glance?

Now we have a new situation brought on by NHRA. If the factory built new cars are acceptable in small quantity, then why not the rear end components ??

OEM, Ford in Ford, etc?

Ken Miele · 04-10-2011, 12:40 PM

Mark, you always new it was illegal in stock? Please tell me how you always new this. Explain to me where it says in the rule for replacing a rear with an aluminum center section is illegal. Below is the rule, point out were it says it is illegal.

REAR END

Original rear end may be replaced with another from the same
automobile manufacturer; truck rear end prohibited. Distance
between backing plates may not be changed. Any gear ratio that
fits third-member case or housing permitted. Limited-slip or
ratchet-type rear ends permitted. Reinforcement of spring perch
permitted. Spools permitted only with aftermarket axles.
Aftermarket axles not required for front-wheel-drive vehicles.
Larger brakes may be used. Replacement rear end may be
narrowed or widened to obtain original rear-end width. Bracing
or beefing up the rear-end housing permitted. Swing axle
differential may be replaced with conventional housing; stock
trailing arms must be retained, may be beefed up and adapted
to housing, must retain transverse spring. Must install Panhard bar.
Frame may be notched for driveshaft clearance. Distance between
OEM backing plates and OEM wheelbase must be maintained.
Coil-over shock or four-link adaptations prohibited.

See General Regulations 2:11.

Jeff, I think that argument is mute. According to NHRA is is not a performance advantage. Anyway I have data and you don't. As far as opening up a door to custom parts. First, it would have to be from the same manufacture. Second, you mean parts like aluminum cases that replace the cast iron cases on toploader's? Would you like me to run through the list of parts that are legal that will open up the door? The parts are not out sourced, Ford and Mopar offer aluminum center sections and they have for many years.

There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past.

art leong · 04-10-2011, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past. [/QUOTE]

That is sad but very true.
Ken you got a raw deal, They should have just told you not to come back with the centersection. But then you would have had letters go to all the division techs telling them that you were "cheating" and to watch out for you.
That's what happened to me last year with my louvered fenders.

Mark Yacavone · 04-10-2011, 01:02 PM

Kenny, Like I said , asked and answered, many times.

I don't see where it's allowed, either. It seems clear to me.

You and I know they can't list every item not legal in the rule book. The book would look like the NYC phone directory.
I'm pretty sure NOS is not allowed , or mentioned in the stock section either.

Look, you've got a good case, with the new cars...Follow that route...

Ed Wright · 04-10-2011, 01:13 PM

What Chuck Nelson and Wesley always told me : "If the rule book does not say you can, you can't."

art leong · 04-10-2011, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Kenny, Like I said , asked and answered, many times.

I don't see where it's allowed, either. It seems clear to me.

You and I know they can't list every item not legal in the rule book. The book would look like the NYC phone directory.
I'm pretty sure NOS is not allowed , or mentioned in the stock section either.

Look, you've got a good case, with the new cars...Follow that route...

WHEW I'm glad you said NOS is not legal in Stock, You didn't mention Superstock, I guess I dodged a bullet. LOL

Ken Miele · 04-10-2011, 02:10 PM

Well Mark it is not clear to me. It says I can replace a rear as long it is from the same manufacture. How you come to the conclusion it says you can't is beyond me. I would love to here from a legal mind when they read that line.

Your assumption that they can't list every item in the rule book is wrong. They sure can, but they don't.

Ed, it does not say I can use an aftermarket shifter, but we all do. When are you going to remove yours?

Art, I'm well prepared for what could happen in the future. I have been there before.

04-10-2011, 12:13 PM	#3
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,821 Likes: 2,912 Liked 5,133 Times in 1,957 Posts	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? Jeff, You kind of beat me to a couple points here. First of all , I always knew aluminum center sections weren't legal in Stock,...way before Evan's article.It had been asked for several times ,and declined in the past. Next question: Would a tech guy be able to tell if a 12 bolt R&P were being used, at a glance? Now we have a new situation brought on by NHRA. If the factory built new cars are acceptable in small quantity, then why not the rear end components ?? OEM, Ford in Ford, etc? __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers

04-10-2011, 12:40 PM	#4
Ken Miele Live Reporter Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 4,862 Likes: 462 Liked 16,563 Times in 1,523 Posts	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? Mark, you always new it was illegal in stock? Please tell me how you always new this. Explain to me where it says in the rule for replacing a rear with an aluminum center section is illegal. Below is the rule, point out were it says it is illegal. REAR END Original rear end may be replaced with another from the same automobile manufacturer; truck rear end prohibited. Distance between backing plates may not be changed. Any gear ratio that fits third-member case or housing permitted. Limited-slip or ratchet-type rear ends permitted. Reinforcement of spring perch permitted. Spools permitted only with aftermarket axles. Aftermarket axles not required for front-wheel-drive vehicles. Larger brakes may be used. Replacement rear end may be narrowed or widened to obtain original rear-end width. Bracing or beefing up the rear-end housing permitted. Swing axle differential may be replaced with conventional housing; stock trailing arms must be retained, may be beefed up and adapted to housing, must retain transverse spring. Must install Panhard bar. Frame may be notched for driveshaft clearance. Distance between OEM backing plates and OEM wheelbase must be maintained. Coil-over shock or four-link adaptations prohibited. See General Regulations 2:11. Jeff, I think that argument is mute. According to NHRA is is not a performance advantage. Anyway I have data and you don't. As far as opening up a door to custom parts. First, it would have to be from the same manufacture. Second, you mean parts like aluminum cases that replace the cast iron cases on toploader's? Would you like me to run through the list of parts that are legal that will open up the door? The parts are not out sourced, Ford and Mopar offer aluminum center sections and they have for many years. There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past.

04-10-2011, 12:55 PM	#5
art leong VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Richmond Hill, Georgia Posts: 2,003 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? [QUOTE=There is nothing stock about stock eliminator. Anyone who believes that is living in the past. [/QUOTE] That is sad but very true. Ken you got a raw deal, They should have just told you not to come back with the centersection. But then you would have had letters go to all the division techs telling them that you were "cheating" and to watch out for you. That's what happened to me last year with my louvered fenders. __________________ Art Leong 2095 SS

04-10-2011, 01:02 PM	#6
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,821 Likes: 2,912 Liked 5,133 Times in 1,957 Posts	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? Kenny, Like I said , asked and answered, many times. I don't see where it's allowed, either. It seems clear to me. You and I know they can't list every item not legal in the rule book. The book would look like the NYC phone directory. I'm pretty sure NOS is not allowed , or mentioned in the stock section either. Look, you've got a good case, with the new cars...Follow that route... __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers

04-10-2011, 01:13 PM	#7
Ed Wright Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sand Springs, OK Posts: 8,132 Likes: 896 Liked 390 Times in 170 Posts	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? What Chuck Nelson and Wesley always told me : "If the rule book does not say you can, you can't." __________________ Ed Wright 4156 SS/JA

04-10-2011, 02:10 PM	#9
Ken Miele Live Reporter Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 4,862 Likes: 462 Liked 16,563 Times in 1,523 Posts	Re: Ford and Mopar Aluminum R/E Cases?? Well Mark it is not clear to me. It says I can replace a rear as long it is from the same manufacture. How you come to the conclusion it says you can't is beyond me. I would love to here from a legal mind when they read that line. Your assumption that they can't list every item in the rule book is wrong. They sure can, but they don't. Ed, it does not say I can use an aftermarket shifter, but we all do. When are you going to remove yours? Art, I'm well prepared for what could happen in the future. I have been there before.